When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

At 6/14/2016 1:37:20 AM, Casten wrote:You've been on a religion forum too long listening to smug atheists say "hail science!" every time they scoff mockingly at your beliefs. You're confused. Take a break and have some tea.

At 6/14/2016 1:37:20 AM, Casten wrote:You've been on a religion forum too long listening to smug atheists say "hail science!" every time they scoff mockingly at your beliefs. You're confused. Take a break and have some tea.

That is a dubious generalization. Scientific literacy is not required to be an atheist.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer

Again, this is a dubious generalization. Science doesn't have all the answers and atheists (even if they are scientifically literate) are generally content to acknowledge ignorance in some areas instead of accepting unsubstantiated explanations.

because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

I assume since your railing against atheists youre a believer and this is an attack on your own position more than anything else.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Scientific consensus is informed by objective observation - it can be verified by individuals other than the observer. This is very different than religious claims as is agreeing with conclusions built on it by experts.

This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself.

At 6/14/2016 1:37:20 AM, Casten wrote:You've been on a religion forum too long listening to smug atheists say "hail science!" every time they scoff mockingly at your beliefs. You're confused. Take a break and have some tea.

Awe...aren't you sweet. Science bless!

"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz

That is a dubious generalization. Scientific literacy is not required to be an atheist.

Could be, but applies to many atheists as they can't comprehend that their are unseen forces so they rely on what they consider to be proof.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer

Again, this is a dubious generalization. Science doesn't have all the answers and atheists (even if they are scientifically literate) are generally content to acknowledge ignorance in some areas instead of accepting unsubstantiated explanations.

Again, many have to believe in something. Seeing is believing to them.

because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

I assume since your railing against atheists youre a believer and this is an attack on your own position more than anything else.

I believe in a higher power and not the religious version of one. I can't understand your contention that I am attacking my own belief. I specifically equated atheism with religious believers and how each needs to defer to its own higher power, the religion for the religious and science for the atheist.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Scientific consensus is informed by objective observation - it can be verified by individuals other than the observer. This is very different than religious claims as is agreeing with conclusions built on it by experts.

Science is not always a consensus of all scientific minds. Even in medicine, the western version is based on pathology, whereas other forms are based on energy flow, such as naturopathy and traditional Chinese medicine. Western medicine is just beginning to wake up from its delusion of owning all knowledge of healing. So much for the experts. All religions spring from some truth, whether whole truths or part truths.

That is a dubious generalization. Scientific literacy is not required to be an atheist.

Could be,

No, that is a fact.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer

Again, this is a dubious generalization. Science doesn't have all the answers and atheists (even if they are scientifically literate) are generally content to acknowledge ignorance in some areas instead of accepting unsubstantiated explanations.

Again, many have to believe in something. Seeing is believing to them.

As opposed to not seeing is believing? Lol!

because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

I assume since your railing against atheists youre a believer and this is an attack on your own position more than anything else.

I believe in a higher power and not the religious version of one. I can't understand your contention that I am attacking my own belief. I specifically equated atheism with religious believers and how each needs to defer to its own higher power, the religion for the religious and science for the atheist.

You believe in a higher power just as those who adhere to various religions. Thus your belief in a higher power suffers from the objections you lodge against religious and atheists. Moreso, imo, since your own position (not the positions of atheists) is the only one you can speak with any authority about.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Scientific consensus is informed by objective observation - it can be verified by individuals other than the observer. This is very different than religious claims as is agreeing with conclusions built on it by experts.

Science is not always a consensus of all scientific minds. Even in medicine, the western version is based on pathology, whereas other forms are based on energy flow, such as naturopathy and traditional Chinese medicine. Western medicine is just beginning to wake up from its delusion of owning all knowledge of healing. So much for the experts. All religions spring from some truth, whether whole truths or part truths.

You've not addressed anything I've said. Non-experts do not contribute to concensus.

This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten

That is a dubious generalization. Scientific literacy is not required to be an atheist.

Could be,

No, that is a fact.

It was only an admission that it may not apply to every atheist. It does apply to many. Fact.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer

Again, this is a dubious generalization. Science doesn't have all the answers and atheists (even if they are scientifically literate) are generally content to acknowledge ignorance in some areas instead of accepting unsubstantiated explanations.

Again, many have to believe in something. Seeing is believing to them.

As opposed to not seeing is believing? Lol!

Here we go. The usual atheist condescending laugh. you all seem to use it to belittle someone else's opinion because it doesn't fit your low consciousness level of understanding. You're confused so you laugh. Your problem is that you aren't capable of understanding any kind of faith so you ridicule it. Sad.

because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

I assume since your railing against atheists youre a believer and this is an attack on your own position more than anything else.

I believe in a higher power and not the religious version of one. I can't understand your contention that I am attacking my own belief. I specifically equated atheism with religious believers and how each needs to defer to its own higher power, the religion for the religious and science for the atheist.

You believe in a higher power just as those who adhere to various religions. Thus your belief in a higher power suffers from the objections you lodge against religious and atheists. Moreso, imo, since your own position (not the positions of atheists) is the only one you can speak with any authority about.

You prove again, your lack of any kind of understanding that doesn't come from your boxed in mind. I have not come to my beliefs by being told what to believe. My beliefs are always open to change because I'm not arrogant to believe I have cornered the truth, unlike the hardened atheist or religious.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Scientific consensus is informed by objective observation - it can be verified by individuals other than the observer. This is very different than religious claims as is agreeing with conclusions built on it by experts.

Science is not always a consensus of all scientific minds. Even in medicine, the western version is based on pathology, whereas other forms are based on energy flow, such as naturopathy and traditional Chinese medicine. Western medicine is just beginning to wake up from its delusion of owning all knowledge of healing. So much for the experts. All religions spring from some truth, whether whole truths or part truths.

You've not addressed anything I've said. Non-experts do not contribute to concensus.

No, you are not listening. Consensus in the scientific community can come from groups in power while dissenting scientists are shouted down, ridiculed and ostracized. Take for instance, global warming and its supposed cause, carbon. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with it, but for political reasons, the consensus, through the UN and the agreeing scientists is considered the truth. It's always suspicious when those that believe in it call for the imprisonment of those that oppose. It's kind of akin to your stupid laugh, which only highlights your insecurity with your position. To counteract your statement: David Suzuki is a geneticist who claims to be an expert on global warming and is aligned with the UN. He's been ridiculed by some climatologists, experts in the field. Suzuki is one non expert who is part of a scientific consensus, which has its opposition.

He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth.

How could it be shown that someone not of your faith did seek for truth?

Do you advocate people of your faith seeking truth outside the doctrine of your faith? Would you endorse exploring polytheism, for example, as an alternative?

He just agrees with scientific consensus.

How is a scientific consensus achieved, other than through observation, diligent inquiry and a contest of prediction?

How do you advocate challenge and contesting doctrine, other than in this fashion?

Please could you advise how your own faith's doctrine should be challenged and contested, to allow adherents to think for themselves? What explorations outside your faith do you endorse?

He is just part of another religion.

Are you repeating doctrine you have been taught, while having no idea how to contest accepted doctrine?

If you believe you can contest accepted doctrine, please advise on the minimum evidence by which your faith's doctrine can be disproven.

Why do you assume I have some sort of doctrine when I opposed religion?

You clearly have a doctrine on religion, since you treated all atheists as thinking the same -- in fact, you cast atheists as worshiping science. That's a doctrinal belief, and as I pointed out, it's neither historically nor sociologically accurate.

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

That is a dubious generalization. Scientific literacy is not required to be an atheist.

Could be,

No, that is a fact.

It was only an admission that it may not apply to every atheist. It does apply to many. Fact.

It doesn't apply to every atheist, that we agree on. Although, I'm curious how you determined it applies to most? Not to mention, you're trying to move the goalposts here to compensate for your inaccurate statement.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer

Again, this is a dubious generalization. Science doesn't have all the answers and atheists (even if they are scientifically literate) are generally content to acknowledge ignorance in some areas instead of accepting unsubstantiated explanations.

Again, many have to believe in something. Seeing is believing to them.

As opposed to not seeing is believing? Lol!

Here we go. The usual atheist condescending laugh. you all seem to use it to belittle someone else's opinion because it doesn't fit your low consciousness level of understanding. You're confused so you laugh. Your problem is that you aren't capable of understanding any kind of faith so you ridicule it. Sad.

Before you try to berate me for condescension, you should remember you started this thread presuming to tell atheists what they believe.

because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

I assume since your railing against atheists youre a believer and this is an attack on your own position more than anything else.

I believe in a higher power and not the religious version of one. I can't understand your contention that I am attacking my own belief. I specifically equated atheism with religious believers and how each needs to defer to its own higher power, the religion for the religious and science for the atheist.

You believe in a higher power just as those who adhere to various religions. Thus your belief in a higher power suffers from the objections you lodge against religious and atheists. Moreso, imo, since your own position (not the positions of atheists) is the only one you can speak with any authority about.

You prove again, your lack of any kind of understanding that doesn't come from your boxed in mind. I have not come to my beliefs by being told what to believe.

...and I never suggested you did.

My beliefs are always open to change because I'm not arrogant to believe I have cornered the truth, unlike the hardened atheist or religious.

I think you would do better to ask questions rather than assume you have 'cornered the truth' about atheists and the religious. Otherwise, you are being arrogant.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Scientific consensus is informed by objective observation - it can be verified by individuals other than the observer. This is very different than religious claims as is agreeing with conclusions built on it by experts.

Science is not always a consensus of all scientific minds. Even in medicine, the western version is based on pathology, whereas other forms are based on energy flow, such as naturopathy and traditional Chinese medicine. Western medicine is just beginning to wake up from its delusion of owning all knowledge of healing. So much for the experts. All religions spring from some truth, whether whole truths or part truths.

You've not addressed anything I've said. Non-experts do not contribute to concensus.

No, you are not listening. Consensus in the scientific community can come from groups in power while dissenting scientists are shouted down, ridiculed and ostracized. Take for instance, global warming and its supposed cause, carbon. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with it, but for political reasons, the consensus, through the UN and the agreeing scientists is considered the truth. It's always suspicious when those that believe in it call for the imprisonment of those that oppose. It's kind of akin to your stupid laugh, which only highlights your insecurity with your position. To counteract your statement: David Suzuki is a geneticist who claims to be an expert on global warming and is aligned with the UN. He's been ridiculed by some climatologists, experts in the field. Suzuki is one non expert who is part of a scientific consensus, which has its opposition.

Do you know what consensus means? It is a general agreement, not total agreement. So again, you've not addressed anything I've said. Also, I'm not aware of any mainstream scientists calling for the imprisonment of dissenters, at least, not for dissent. You'll need to back that up. Also, a geneticist is not an expert on climatology - he would be an expert in...wait for it....genetics! He has no legitimate part in the scientific consensus on global warming. That's like complaining about oncologists disallowing opinions from accountants about cancer.

This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

An atheist by definition is without belief and worships nothing let alone science. In other words an atheist takes a neutral position. Science happens to be the best, effective and most thorough way of testing things, whether it is that you have a life threatening disease or verifying artefacts and fossils.Atheists are free to choose to accept or not accept scientific consensus. It so happens that overwhelming amounts of tangible evidence have been discovered, tested and re-tested over many years that completely contradicts and debunks the description of man's creation as depicted in the bible.As an atheist, I am completely open to a more superior way of testing and verifying samples of fossilised sculls dating back millions of years and confirming an evolutionary process. If you can find a better way of testing this evidence and it turns out that there was a creator involved then, great. I will be the first to drop to my knees and pray to God. I would love to go to heaven and be with my loved ones.

There is not much difference between atheists and theists. At last count there are about ten thousand different Gods being worshiped around the world. An atheist just happens to believe in one less than the theist.

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Atheists have the same God as the Christians.The Christians God receives the exact same amount of worship from atheists and Christians.

The atheists will receive everything the Christians get from their god.

The Christians god receives the exact amount of prayers from both.

The Christians god looks over the atheists the same amountHe loves us equally.

we get the exact amount of love from your god throughout our whole lives.

Every atheist knows this.

What you have been promised at death .Is the exact same treatment your god will give us atheists.

That is a dubious generalization. Scientific literacy is not required to be an atheist.

Could be,

No, that is a fact.

It was only an admission that it may not apply to every atheist. It does apply to many. Fact.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer

Again, this is a dubious generalization. Science doesn't have all the answers and atheists (even if they are scientifically literate) are generally content to acknowledge ignorance in some areas instead of accepting unsubstantiated explanations.

Again, many have to believe in something. Seeing is believing to them.

As opposed to not seeing is believing? Lol!

Here we go. The usual atheist condescending laugh. you all seem to use it to belittle someone else's opinion because it doesn't fit your low consciousness level of understanding. You're confused so you laugh. Your problem is that you aren't capable of understanding any kind of faith so you ridicule it. Sad.

because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

I assume since your railing against atheists youre a believer and this is an attack on your own position more than anything else.

I believe in a higher power and not the religious version of one. I can't understand your contention that I am attacking my own belief. I specifically equated atheism with religious believers and how each needs to defer to its own higher power, the religion for the religious and science for the atheist.

You believe in a higher power just as those who adhere to various religions. Thus your belief in a higher power suffers from the objections you lodge against religious and atheists. Moreso, imo, since your own position (not the positions of atheists) is the only one you can speak with any authority about.

You prove again, your lack of any kind of understanding that doesn't come from your boxed in mind. I have not come to my beliefs by being told what to believe. My beliefs are always open to change because I'm not arrogant to believe I have cornered the truth, unlike the hardened atheist or religious.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Scientific consensus is informed by objective observation - it can be verified by individuals other than the observer. This is very different than religious claims as is agreeing with conclusions built on it by experts.

Science is not always a consensus of all scientific minds. Even in medicine, the western version is based on pathology, whereas other forms are based on energy flow, such as naturopathy and traditional Chinese medicine. Western medicine is just beginning to wake up from its delusion of owning all knowledge of healing. So much for the experts. All religions spring from some truth, whether whole truths or part truths.

You've not addressed anything I've said. Non-experts do not contribute to concensus.

No, you are not listening. Consensus in the scientific community can come from groups in power while dissenting scientists are shouted down, ridiculed and ostracized. Take for instance, global warming and its supposed cause, carbon. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with it, but for political reasons, the consensus, through the UN and the agreeing scientists is considered the truth. It's always suspicious when those that believe in it call for the imprisonment of those that oppose. It's kind of akin to your stupid laugh, which only highlights your insecurity with your position. To counteract your statement: David Suzuki is a geneticist who claims to be an expert on global warming and is aligned with the UN. He's been ridiculed by some climatologists, experts in the field. Suzuki is one non expert who is part of a scientific consensus, which has its opposition.

Maybe some do. I don't. I've never seen another atheist worship science.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

Maybe some do. I don't and I've never seen another atheist do this. I'm beginning to suspect straw man, here.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

+1

Really? I'm always amused when an attempt is made by theists to denigrate atheism by calling it a religion and worship. They appear to agree that these things are unworthy and undesirable pursuits. The irony of what they are doing seems to elude them.

Okay, so immediately you have conflated a practice with a supernatural entity. Does science answer prayers, alter the course of human events, have any concern or demand anything of its adherents? Is science a mindful being?

This similarity is poor.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer

... which is again, not true, nor does an atheist by definition need to have any variety of vested interest in the scientific community, despite the fact you claim its godlike to athiests.

because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

This is done on a variety of things, however with a scientific process, an atheist and theist alike could dedicate themselves to particular fields of study, and most reputable scientists public peer reviewed journals so that others might be able to follow and falsify/confirm the findings. Such is not the case regarding the interpretive nature of a real religion.

Were we to continue your analogy, I defer to my mechanic as a god. My "faith" in his ability is a religion, because I didn't devote myself to such a trade.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth.

Depends on the issue, doesn't it? We all do this to varying degrees. Do you scrutinize the water that comes out of your tap for safety concerns? Do you conduct studies on windows to see which one is actually the most energy efficient for your home? Or do you review information presented to you by others that practice such things on a regular basis? It just so happens that the difference between a theist and atheist on the matter is that one of the two require some variety of accountability to the findings.

He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

What do you consider supernatural about scientific consensus?

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

I think you're using definitions that make no sense when used together.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

Based on the definition of Science, one would defer to such a system of explanations for answers as no other system has yet to produce consistently valid knowledge and information. And, that does indeed require one actually think for themselves.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Okay, so what exactly do you not agree with in regards to what Science has offered? Be specific. Show us what is NOT truth when it comes to Science?

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Disparaging atheists by comparing to religion equates to disparaging religion.

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

"Worshiping science" is not a tenant of atheism, do you understand that?

That is a dubious generalization. Scientific literacy is not required to be an atheist.

Could be,

No, that is a fact.

It was only an admission that it may not apply to every atheist. It does apply to many. Fact.

He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer

Again, this is a dubious generalization. Science doesn't have all the answers and atheists (even if they are scientifically literate) are generally content to acknowledge ignorance in some areas instead of accepting unsubstantiated explanations.

Again, many have to believe in something. Seeing is believing to them.

As opposed to not seeing is believing? Lol!

Here we go. The usual atheist condescending laugh. you all seem to use it to belittle someone else's opinion because it doesn't fit your low consciousness level of understanding. You're confused so you laugh. Your problem is that you aren't capable of understanding any kind of faith so you ridicule it. Sad.

because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power.

I assume since your railing against atheists youre a believer and this is an attack on your own position more than anything else.

I believe in a higher power and not the religious version of one. I can't understand your contention that I am attacking my own belief. I specifically equated atheism with religious believers and how each needs to defer to its own higher power, the religion for the religious and science for the atheist.

You believe in a higher power just as those who adhere to various religions. Thus your belief in a higher power suffers from the objections you lodge against religious and atheists. Moreso, imo, since your own position (not the positions of atheists) is the only one you can speak with any authority about.

You prove again, your lack of any kind of understanding that doesn't come from your boxed in mind. I have not come to my beliefs by being told what to believe. My beliefs are always open to change because I'm not arrogant to believe I have cornered the truth, unlike the hardened atheist or religious.

His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

Scientific consensus is informed by objective observation - it can be verified by individuals other than the observer. This is very different than religious claims as is agreeing with conclusions built on it by experts.

Science is not always a consensus of all scientific minds. Even in medicine, the western version is based on pathology, whereas other forms are based on energy flow, such as naturopathy and traditional Chinese medicine. Western medicine is just beginning to wake up from its delusion of owning all knowledge of healing. So much for the experts. All religions spring from some truth, whether whole truths or part truths.

You've not addressed anything I've said. Non-experts do not contribute to concensus.

No, you are not listening. Consensus in the scientific community can come from groups in power while dissenting scientists are shouted down, ridiculed and ostracized. Take for instance, global warming and its supposed cause, carbon. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with it, but for political reasons, the consensus, through the UN and the agreeing scientists is considered the truth. It's always suspicious when those that believe in it call for the imprisonment of those that oppose. It's kind of akin to your stupid laugh, which only highlights your insecurity with your position. To counteract your statement: David Suzuki is a geneticist who claims to be an expert on global warming and is aligned with the UN. He's been ridiculed by some climatologists, experts in the field. Suzuki is one non expert who is part of a scientific consensus, which has its opposition.

What evidence do you have that it applies to many atheists? Also how are you defining many?

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

This is assuming that atheists are not scientifically literate. I have found that most atheists understand science for more, on average, than theists.

I would consider myself very scientifically literate. I don't just typically agree with scientific consensus, I am part of the scientific consensus because I many times I take the time to understand the methods used to determine truth.

Consensus arises because what is proposed to be true or false can be tested and observed. Is it reasonable to have scientific consensus that water boils at 100c at sea level? If someone disagrees about the temperature at which water boils, what does that say about them?

The Scientific Method illuminates what is true and eliminates what is false. If you disagree, explain what part(s) of The Scientific Method that you believe causes errors.

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

I don't know. I know a lot of atheists, and most of them don't ever think or care about science at all.

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

+1

Really? I'm always amused when an attempt is made by theists to denigrate atheism by calling it a religion and worship. They appear to agree that these things are unworthy and undesirable pursuits. The irony of what they are doing seems to elude them.

It's "hey, you are as bad as we are". Lol.

You aren't just as "bad" as they are, some of yall are worse. The only thing that I disagree with in the post is that the author didn't qualify "atheists", with some or many. There are open minded atheists and open minded believers, but the majority in both groups firmly believe in their set dogma.

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

+1

Really? I'm always amused when an attempt is made by theists to denigrate atheism by calling it a religion and worship. They appear to agree that these things are unworthy and undesirable pursuits. The irony of what they are doing seems to elude them.

It's "hey, you are as bad as we are". Lol.

You aren't just as "bad" as they are, some of yall are worse.

You miss the point. It is not about whether we are better or worse as people or in our online behaviour. It is about seeking to tarnish a group of people by attributing to them the the kinds of actions which they themselves engage in. Implicitly they are admitting that worship and religious devotion are something base and contemptible. This is the irony which you both miss.

The only thing that I disagree with in the post is that the author didn't qualify "atheists", with some or many. There are open minded atheists and open minded believers, but the majority in both groups firmly believe in their set dogma.

Really? Please detail the dogma of atheists.

dogmanouna principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Please tell us what our authority in non-belief in gods is and the set of principles laid down by that authority.

At 6/14/2016 1:27:49 AM, lotsoffun wrote:When looked at logically, the atheist worships its own god - Science. He insists, as do the religious, that his god is the end all be all and final answer because in his mind, just as in the mind of the religious follower he cannot think for himself and therefore defers to his chosen higher power. His delusion is that he actually thinks for himself. He will of course refuse to acknowledge this truth as he never seeks the truth. He just agrees with scientific consensus. He is just part of another religion.

+1

Really? I'm always amused when an attempt is made by theists to denigrate atheism by calling it a religion and worship. They appear to agree that these things are unworthy and undesirable pursuits. The irony of what they are doing seems to elude them.

It's "hey, you are as bad as we are". Lol.

You aren't just as "bad" as they are, some of yall are worse.

You miss the point. It is not about whether we are better or worse as people or in our online behaviour. It is about seeking to tarnish a group of people by attributing to them the the kinds of actions which they themselves engage in. Implicitly they are admitting that worship and religious devotion are something base and contemptible. This is the irony which you both miss.

The only thing that I disagree with in the post is that the author didn't qualify "atheists", with some or many. There are open minded atheists and open minded believers, but the majority in both groups firmly believe in their set dogma.

Really? Please detail the dogma of atheists.

dogmanouna principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Please tell us what our authority in non-belief in gods is and the set of principles laid down by that authority.

Scientific concensus , it's what the Op of this thread is about, I just phrased it in a different manner.